Take another quiz >

Monarchies of the World

Name the countries of the world that are monarchies.
Includes constitutional monarchies
Groups together countries that share the same monarch
As of July 2019
Quiz by Quizmaster
Rate:
Last updated: October 2, 2019
First submittedDecember 6, 2010
Times taken63,294
Rating4.66
4:00
Enter country here:
0
 / 29 guessed
The quiz is paused. You have remaining.
Scoring
You scored / = %
This beats or equals % of test takers also scored 100%
The average score is
Your high score is
Your fastest time is
Keep scrolling down for answers and more stats ...
Title
Monarch
Country
Co-Princes
Emmanuel & Joan
Andorra
King
Hamad
Bahrain
King
Philippe
Belgium
King
Khesar
Bhutan
Sultan
Hassanal
Brunei
King
Sihamoni
Cambodia
Queen
Margrethe
Denmark
King
Mswati
Eswatini
Emperor
Naruhito
Japan
King
Abdullah
Jordan
Emir
Sabah
Kuwait
King
Letsie
Lesotho
Prince
Hans-Adam
Liechtenstein
Grand Duke
Henri
Luxembourg
Yang di-Pertuan
Agong
Abdullah
Malaysia
Title
Monarch
Country
Prince
Albert
Monaco
King
Mohammed
Morocco
King
Willem-Alexander
Netherlands
King
Harald
Norway
Sultan
Qaboos
Oman
Emir
Tamim
Qatar
King
Salman
Saudi Arabia
King
Felipe
Spain
King
Carl Gustaf
Sweden
King
Vajiralongkorn
Thailand
King
Tupou
Tonga
Emir
Multiple (7)
United Arab Emirates
Queen
Elizabeth
United Kingdom /
Commonwealth Realms
Pope
Francis
Vatican City
+3
level ∞
Jun 14, 2011
Reset the quiz to include Tonga and United Arab Emirates.
+1
level 29
Nov 27, 2011
Missed Lesotho and Tonga... I was sure Nepal was a monarchy though...
+6
level ∞
Nov 27, 2011
Nepal's monarchy was abolished in 2008.
+5
level 74
Dec 1, 2016
In a most dramatic way, starting with crown Prince gunning down most of the royal family ...
+1
level 61
Jul 19, 2019
This quiz inspired me to revisit the abolition of the Nepalese monarchy, which I remember, and read about the royal massacre of 2001, about which I had absolutely no idea. The story is nuts.
+2
level 29
Feb 19, 2013
Aww I'm stupid I missed Thailand... But i'm suprised that Tonga is monarchy! lol
+2
level 26
Dec 4, 2011
I knew maybe 5 of these. I guessed the other 15.
+1
level 15
Dec 28, 2011
So there's only 29 monarchies out of 196 (I think) countries? I guess that shows how stupid it is. (No offence, I live in one of them myself.)
+2
level 53
Jun 15, 2013
Depends on what your monarchies does. Ceremonial monarchies aren't too bad at all tbh
+1
level 67
Dec 7, 2014
Not sure what this has to do with accepting 'being inferior' as you put it - I certainly don't consider it being that.
+8
level 44
Jan 13, 2015
Absolute monarchies are frankly no better than dictators but I have to say that constitutional monarchies can work well. I like a system where politicians run the country but are not the head of state, it stops the power going to their heads (admittedly not always!). As long as the monarch is the head of state but has little or no political influence (and compared to many large corporations and individuals that noone voted for, she doesn't) then I have no problem with that. I'd far rather have the queen as my head of state than almost any politician I can think of. No system is perfect but constitutional monarchies on the whole seem to be a better way of keeping the egos in check. Power corrupts, etc...
+1
level 76
Jun 16, 2017
They're good for tourism, I suppose.
+2
level 45
May 29, 2018
I agree, a constitutional monarchy is not at all bad. Although it does cost money, all the pomp and grandeur is good for tourism. So I don't think it's a bad thing.
+1
level 57
Sep 10, 2018
Interesting debate here. I think there are good arguments for a ceremonial monarch, but I don't really buy the idea that they are good for tourism. People aren't going to say "I think I'll visit the UK for my holiday because it is a monarchy". We have castles and palaces that result from the monarchy and are tourist attractions, but would abolition of the monarchy really make them less valuable? Probably not. While it would be pretty ridiculous for a country like France or the USA to start a monarchy now, I do however think that if a head of state is introduced who is directly elected democratically, they will have a mandate to run the country however they want (something Queen Elizabeth II does not have and has never thought she had). And a ruler should have to put their decisions before a parliament in the knowledge that it is the parliament, not them, who holds sovereignty. We could make the Prime Minister head of state, but the formalities involved would likely distract them even
+1
level 57
Sep 10, 2018
further from running the country. Another alternative is to have no head of state like Switzerland, but if the monarchy were abolished I don't think that would happen. People calling monarchy a waste of money should remember that whatever might replace it would quite possibly cost just as much, or more.
+1
level 62
Jan 25, 2019
@waste of money (wether you agree with monarchies or not). There are millions going into elections in america, I dont know the figures by heart. But at one point I heard a figure, and that was just a portion for a small thing, running for governor and what they spend in a week or specific region, cant remember. But I can only remember I was in utter utter shock! The good that could ve been done with that money! Instead of spending it on some popularity contest for their ego's.

and once they are elected, there isnt enough money for good causes.

really the whole world seems like a poularity contest. Time and money are spend on looks and (false) appearances/image. Instead on things that matter, people want to look cool instead of being nice..

I ll stop here, cause there is too much to mention

+3
level 34
Apr 19, 2014
or how stupid the majority are, I live in a republic and it is the absolute worst idea every come up with by mankind. the republic is a government of the politician, for the politician, and by the politician. where the politicians pit citizens against each other simply for power over the unwashed masses. trust me, you have it better by living in a monarchy.
+4
level 80
Jul 17, 2014
Says one guy. I'll take my republic any day of the week, thank you very much. I guess I'm part of the "stupid majority."
+1
level 38
Sep 29, 2017
In a monarchy, you know what you've got and, unless the monarch is a complete idiot, restraint will be used to protect it in the long run. In a so-called republic, in the first term, they are all vying for a second term during which they will complete all the promises they made during their campaign and if they get that second term (in those countries with term limits) they're a lame duck and their attitude is sc- - - the masses. And yes, quiz master, you can delete this as you did with all the other with which you disagreed.
+2
level 62
Jan 25, 2019
Regardless of being for or against(or not caring). The argument that something is rare and therefor is wrong is flawed. The masses arent allways right (especially when on one hand you have people that shout hard and on the other hand sheep that prefer to follow instead of think for themselves. You allready see that interaction in elementary school. Like one guy starts to pick one others, and the rest follow. Does that make it the right behavior? No absolutely not)

the best things usually the things that isnt like anything else. Every inventiins come from someone that wanted to do things differently than had been done before (and indeed the masses usually oppose it at first, until it is considered normal and then it is weird you dont have them (cars tv's etc)

again none of this is about monarchy or not. Only about if something is the minority that that would mean it is the bad/wrong thing. (And more often than not it is not)

+2
level 32
Jan 30, 2012
Good question, these aren these all the monarchies in the world? Also, it would be interesting to make a difference between symbolic monarchies and absolute monarchies.
+2
level 66
Nov 10, 2012
Interesting quiz. :) But technically the Vatican city is a theocracy, not a monarchy, just like Iran. :/
+1
level 77
Jan 13, 2013
Yes, true. If we're not going to trifle about actual titles, then many dictatorships around the world function just like monarchies with absolute monarchs and hereditary rule. North Korea, for instance, is closer to being a monarchy in practice than Great Britain. The only thing that makes many of these countries monarchies is that they have some twat living in a castle who calls himself king. But the twat at the Vatican calls himself Pope and claims to speak directly to God, rather than simply getting his authority from Him. So, there's a difference.
+2
level 66
Oct 17, 2014
Well yeah. But the position of pope is not hereditary, which sets it apart from the other monarchies.
+2
level 57
Sep 10, 2018
... except Andorra.
+1
level 46
Mar 15, 2013
Pope has changed.
+1
level 39
Mar 19, 2013
You should change the leader in Vatican. There's now a new Pope
+2
level 77
Jun 11, 2013
Ah... the countries in the world where it's still mandated by law to worship some inbred rich family. Keeping Up With the Kardashians may be a bit of a cultural embarrassment but at least it's not written in to the constitution that we have to keep it on the air. I guess that's progress?

Been a few months since I last took this quiz. Somehow managed to miss the Vatican despite the conversation we were having last time about the appropriateness of its inclusion on the list. Guess I should have remembered it was on here even if that's a bit odd. Only other ones I missed were Japan and the two land-locked South African countries.
+1
level 69
Jun 11, 2013
It's not required in all countries that have them to "worship" the royal family, or even to respect them. There are plenty of republicans in the UK for example, such as myself, and plenty of people are pretty vocal about their dislike of monarchies. I wouldn't recommend trying the same thing in Saudi Arabia or Thailand though.
+2
level ∞
Jul 23, 2019
You are required to swear an oath of allegiance to the monarch and their descendants if you want to become a citizen, or to serve in certain public duties. Maybe people just lie when they swear the oath. Personally, I think people shouldn't be required to do so.
+1
level 57
Jun 12, 2013
What are you talking about? They're there just for symbollic reasons. They have little to no influence in the government whatsoever. At least in Europe that is. Keeping Up With the Kardashians is made for entertainment. Why would you feel embarassed by a TV show? It's not a representation of a whole country, just of a stupid family (which is kinda foreign BTW).
+1
level 77
Jun 13, 2013
Even in the countries you could name where the monarchies are figureheads, they still have access to enormous piles of money that they didn't earn and are often protected by certain laws from at least some forms of criticism or disrespect. The media are often limited in what they can show or say about them.

The embarrassing thing about the Kardashians or other reality TV shows is not that all Americans are like them, but that enough Americans are interested in watching television shows about them that they are still on the air. They do nothing of value and serve no useful purpose but enough people are still fascinated by them that they get to keep their prominent place in society. That last sentence could apply to any of the families previously mentioned.
+2
level 72
Oct 12, 2013
ALL forms of government can be criticised from one or more angles. In the USA, for example, you can't become president without having access to huge pots of money and currying favour with lobby groups who have huge pots of money. Are you saying that Dubya was elected (twice!) because he was the best person out of 350 million citizens to lead the USA? Of course he wasn't; he had access to huge pots of money (which he didn't earn). As an Australian I'm a republican, but as a Brit I'm happy with the monarchy as it is. It brings in huge amounts of tourists, particularly from the USA and I quite enjoy the traditions that go along with having a monarch.
+2
level 34
Apr 19, 2014
in the so called "great" republic of the united states our president spends more on just his inauguration then the UK spends on HM the Queen and the ENTIRE royal family....the republics are where all the money is because you can spend the money on voting in a person that will scratch your back. the republic is the most disgusting corrupt and greedy form of government ever conceived by man kind.
+1
level 80
Jul 17, 2014
"the most disgusting corrupt and greedy form of government ever conceived by man kind"?

Well, we're full of hyperbole aren't we? There's no doubting that there is greed and corruption in America's capitalist system, but you make it sound like anything would be better than what we have now, and that's ridiculous.
+3
level 72
Jan 13, 2015
But in the US, the president runs the country. In most monarchies, at least those in Europe, the monarch has no significant role in the running of the country. It's not written in the Constitution that the richest bloke gets the job, but that's still what happens because it takes vast sums of money to win an election. A cap on the amount of cash any party is allowed to spend on electioneering, as exists in many other countries, would go some way to levelling the playing field. After all, the idea is to get the best person for the job, not the person from the richest family.
+1
level 76
Jun 16, 2017
Our most recent US presidential election proves that the one who spends the most money doesn't always win the race.
+2
level 77
Sep 10, 2018
^but claiming over and over against to be really, really rich even though you are a failed businessman who has gone through multiple bankruptcies and is afraid to let anyone see your tax returns lest they find out what a transparent fraud you are, that seems to be helpful.
+1
level 59
Aug 22, 2015
Inbred? There are several members of the royal families in Europe who have married people outside them. Honestly, I'm not a supporter of monarchy, but if the people like it, then that's totally OK with me.
+4
level 77
Oct 16, 2017
If you spent 3 weeks drinking your own urine and then yesterday had a clean glass of orange juice you're still not going to have a healthy set of kidneys.
+1
level 61
Jul 19, 2019
Challenge accepted, kal.
+1
level 57
Sep 10, 2018
Laws like the Treason Act (along with probably loads of others) should obviously be abolished. But... @kalbahamut, restrictions on the media when reporting about the royals? The problem with media focus on the royal family at least in the UK isn't that there is not enough. And nobody with more than a few million pounds really earned it by themselves.
+1
level 77
Jul 19, 2019
I obviously didn't mean that there was too little coverage. It's not about the volume of coverage but the content that is allowed. And I'm not just talking about Britain, either. Look at all those in Thailand in jail for criticizing the king. Or in a ditch in Saudi Arabia.
You don't think Bill Gates earned his own money?
+1
level 57
Jul 19, 2019
I have had a look at what has happened with the Thai monarchy and yes you are right in that case. I assumed that when you stated it was mandated by law to worship the royal families you were being hyperbolic; in fact this is literally the case in Thailand. And as you can probably imagine I never meant to defend the Saudi monarchy either (though there it is not mandated by law to worship the royal family). My interest lies mainly in the monarchies of some of the most democratic countries where the monarchies really are figureheads. Ones such as the UK, Norway, Sweden, Spain, Denmark, Netherlands (I could go on). I don't know of many significant privileges the monarchies of these countries receive that result in people being given criminal punishment.
+1
level 57
Jul 19, 2019
As for the thing about the money they receive, I could indeed use a fairly plausible definition of "earning" money and explain why Bill Gates didn't earn his, though the argument would come across as Marxist. Perhaps a more helpful line to go down would be comparing how much money monarchs receive compared to other heads of states. The main problem with this is that the actual money these people receive tends to fade into insignificance when the expenses or police protection they receive is factored in. Including or excluding this the money they have that is paid by the taxpayer would probably still be paid to any other head of state.
+1
level 77
Jul 22, 2019
Then you've rendered the word "earn" meaningless.
+1
level 57
Jul 23, 2019
Haven't you as well? The Queen does actually do stuff as part of her role as Queen, and my understanding is that if she abdicated she would no longer have access to the money (though in practice she would as one of her close relatives would become the monarch).
+1
level 77
Jul 23, 2019
No, I haven't at all. The queen did nothing to earn her money other than emerge from her mother's birth canal. She was wealthy and entitled to a life of enormous excess and privilege from the moment she had her umbilical cord cut. Since then, she's done pathetically little to deserve the money wasted on her extravagant and ridiculous lifestyle. The arguments I've seen put forward for the good charitable work she has done or the benefits she gives to the British economy are laughably, pathetically weak. But it wouldn't matter; even if she was the most extraordinarily hard-working noble-hearted woman in history, and she's not, she still did nothing to earn her wealth or privilege. She was born into it. If she did less work or spent fewer hours waving at the commoners she would not get a pay cut.
+1
level 77
Jul 23, 2019
I *suppose* you could argue that Gates was also born into privilege- he was born in the USA, for one thing. The most prosperous, technologically-advanced, resource-rich country in the world at the time, where entrepreneurial opportunities abounded and the technology that he would go on to refine and popularize was mostly invented. Fortuitous.
He was also largely gifted his staggering intellect and inventiveness and his propensity for diligence, hard work, and competitive drive through some combination of genetics and environment. And was privileged enough to attend Harvard University, though he dropped out, he was still surrounded by other brilliant and inventive people.
The economic size and strength of the country he was born into helped guarantee the commercial success of the products he invented.

So, yeah, you could make that point.
Still, his wealth came about as a direct results of his actions in life. This is how most understand the word "earn."
+2
level 49
Jun 11, 2013
How could I forget Brunei and Bhutan.
+5
level 48
Jun 16, 2017
That is an absolute disgrace.
+1
level 20
Jun 12, 2013
The title of the ruler of the Vatican is the king, but they are awarded to the same person. The title should be king.
+1
level 77
Jun 13, 2013
So the Pope is also the king of Vatican City? hm.. to Wikipedia!...
+1
level 24
Jun 16, 2013
there's a CGPGrey video on YouTube about it
+1
level 44
Jan 19, 2014
Belgium should be updated, King Albert abdicated in July 2013. King Phillipe is the monarch now.
+1
level ∞
Jan 20, 2014
Updated
+1
level 44
Nov 8, 2014
title is misleading... countries that have monarchs would be better very few of these have true monarchy governments
+1
level 34
May 22, 2015
Should the Ayatollah be on here for Iran?
+1
level 61
Jul 19, 2019
Russians in Afghanistan!
+2
level 66
Jun 11, 2015
It would be nice to remove the word "still" from the title of the quiz, as it implies a lot of things including a personal opinion.
+1
level 80
Aug 22, 2015
Like the new look, QM!
+1
level 59
Aug 22, 2015
I like most things updated with the new look, but why add a "Start quiz" button?
+1
level 77
Aug 22, 2015
I LIKE the "Start quiz" button very much!
+1
level 59
Aug 23, 2015
What's the point of the button, I'd like to know.
+1
level 77
Aug 23, 2015
I can't speak for anyone else but I like having an opportunity to read the instructions without losing valuable time on the clock. Wasted seconds are points lost!
+1
level 76
Jun 16, 2017
But it also gives time to think about (or even look up) the answers before starting the quiz which is not a good thing IMO.
+1
level 62
Jan 25, 2019
@ander but why would you even take the quiz then (if you, not you but you know ;), are gonna look up the answer anyway... no point then. You might aswell just read an encyclopedia
+1
level 45
Feb 26, 2019
^ You'd think so, but apparently there are lots of people that do look up the answers. To me that seems like a very strange thing to do when it is supposed to be a quiz.
+1
level 65
Aug 22, 2015
26/29. I can live with that. I really should have gotten Norway and Cambodia, though.
+1
level 58
Aug 22, 2015
Looking at this list now, the most amazing thing to me is the surprising lack of monarchies left in Africa. Just Morocco and the tiny kingdoms of Lesotho, Swaziland and Tonga.
+2
level 59
Aug 23, 2015
Tonga is in Oceania. That reduces the number of monarchies in Africa to 3. I'm not surprised though, because most African countries are relatively new, being formed after 1950 for the first time.
+1
level 38
Aug 22, 2015
LIving down under is good. We are a constitutional monarchy with the Queen as Sovereign. She has a "substitute" of sorts, they being the Governor-General. The Queen's Royal style and title in Australia is Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth. Taken from: http://www.royal.gov.uk/monarchandcommonwealth/australia/australia.aspx
+1
level 62
Jan 25, 2019
Style? Is that something like a tag? Haha
+1
level 62
Aug 23, 2015
As soon as I realized that a lot of these countries were tiny, I was on a roll.
+1
level 51
Sep 25, 2015
All I did was guess...still got Swaziland, Lesotho and Lichtenstein
+1
level 43
Dec 5, 2015
LOL François, co-prince of Andorra XD
+1
level 37
Jun 23, 2017
Emmanuel now :)
+1
level 63
Jan 26, 2016
What about Samoa? Tuiatua Tupua Tamasese Efi is their constitutional monarch...
+1
level ∞
May 27, 2017
Not a monarchy according to Wikipedia.
+1
level 74
Jun 16, 2017
No, he was duly elected. He's aparently head of a "royal" family (quote marks according to Wikipedia), but it has not much to do with his political function.
+1
level 62
Oct 13, 2016
King Bhumibol has died. May he rest in peace.
+1
level 60
Jun 16, 2017
Neat quiz! You clearly did a lot of research. I pretty much just guessed the countries.
+3
level 80
Jun 16, 2017
Wait, Nigeria's not a monarchy? Then why do I keep getting e-mails from a Nigerian prince that wants to give me lots of money?
+2
level 74
Jun 16, 2017
There are plenty of princes in abolished monarchies (Serbia, Greece, Germany, ...)
+1
level 51
Oct 16, 2017
hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
+1
level 67
Jun 17, 2017
I made a quiz on restored monarchies that you might want to check out. http://www.jetpunk.com/user-quizzes/120795/restored-monarchies
+1
level 51
Jun 17, 2017
I forgot the pope......
+1
level 57
Jun 23, 2017
four minutes?? seriously? how about like six or seven minutes. need more time.
+3
level 37
Jun 23, 2017
Funny that Prince Emmanuel of Andorra is actually Emmanuel Macron, the French President.
+1
level 53
Dec 5, 2017
Ugh, I was typing... Liechtenstein, Andorra, Luxembourg, and then I decided, "Vatican City? Nah, he is the pope, not a king!" Completely missed.
+1
level 30
Sep 17, 2018
How about Nepal?
+1
level 57
Nov 10, 2018
Abolished.
+1
level 57
Jul 4, 2019
An interesting observation I posted above (it was deleted because the user who started the thread was deleted): Of the 17 countries listed as full democracies by the democracy index at the time, 9 were monarchies. This number has since changed to 10/20.
+2
level 65
Jul 19, 2019
Japan has a new emperor since May 2019
+1
level 69
Jul 19, 2019
Malaysia’s monarch has changed from Muhammad to Abdullah since January 31 this year.
+1
level 66
Jul 19, 2019
Congrats to San Marino on being the only free city state in Europe!
+1
level 45
Jul 19, 2019
If you enjoyed this quiz, check out this "Constitutional Monarchies" quiz. Similar, but not at all the same!
+1
level 61
Jul 19, 2019
Many comments touting that the strongest and most successful governments still have constitutional monarchs. I am wondering whether that is any causal relationship though. I suspect it's just a coincidence. Western Europe has the most successful democracies, and also has a history of monarchies, but I don't think the former is really the result of the latter. The US's current quandary is the result of a culture that is rotting from the inside, owing mostly to greed and bigotry. I don't see how that has anything to do with not having a monarch. I'm sure some grad student has written an interesting paper on the subject. To the internet!
+1
level 57
Jul 19, 2019
I think it is because the strongest and most successful governments are generally the oldest ones (i.e. countries where it is difficult to bring down the government haven't had the government brought down in a while). Monarchy is an older form of government than a modern democratic republic, so the most stable governments tend to be disproportionately likely to be constitutional monarchies.
+1
level 77
Sep 9, 2019
The USA has the oldest still-in-use written constitution in the world and has had a remarkably stable and long-continuous government, more than many other countries that most people think of as older which in fact have undergone multiple revolutions, coups, or reorganizations in recent history and so shouldn't really be thought of as old. Great Britain managed to stay out of the revolutions that swept across Europe in the 1800s but that makes them more the exception than the rule.
+1
level 36
Jul 19, 2019
That was fun. I got them all (almost missed Tonga but the quiz goes in alaphabetic order of the country so that helped a lot)
+1
level 52
Jul 20, 2019
I had no idea Cambodia was a monarchy
+2
level 76
Jul 20, 2019
Akihito's reign as Emperor ended after his abdication. Naruhito became Emperor since 1 May 2019, the beginning of the Reiwa era
+1
level 52
Jul 21, 2019
That's 29 too many.
+1
level 60
Jul 23, 2019
Qatar's Emir is Tamim since June 2013. He is the son of Hamad
+1
level ∞
Jul 23, 2019
Fixed